726   INSURABLE INTEREST

Section 6.-A Surety for the Property's Purchase-Price. LOYD v. PLANTERS MUT. INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906. 80 Ark. 486, 97 S. W. 658.

Action by T. M. Loyd against the Planter's Mutual Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

HILL, C. J. This is the third appearance of this case here. See Planters' Mutual Ins. Co. v. Loyd, 67 Ark. 584, 56 S. W. 44, 77 Am. St. Rep. 136, and Planters' Mutual Ins. Co. v. Loyd, 71 Ark. 292, 75 S. W. 725. On the third trial the court directed a verdict for the insurance company, and Loyd appealed.

It is contended that facts were brought out on the last trial, not heretofore in the record, which entitled appellant to go to the jury on the new issues. The matters relied upon are these: (1) That Loyd had an insurable interest in the property by virtue of being surety on a bond for the purchase price of the property; and (2) that he had an insurable interest by reason of an estate by the curtesy initiate in the property.

1. The facts regarding the suretyship brought out on the last trial were these: Kiser obtained judgment against Loyd for $74 for material going into the construction of the house covered by the insurance policy in suit, and the property was sold under it on 22d December, 1896. Loyd bought it in his wife's name, and he and Kinsworthy went on the bond for purchase money. On January 25, 1897, this insurance policy was written for a term of three years, $750 on the house and $250 on the personalty, and on March 2, 1897, it was destroyed by fire. Kinsworthy paid the bond, whether before or after the fire is not disclosed.

The contention is that the suretyship on this bond gave Loyd an insurable interest in the property for whose purchase it was given, in that he could be subrogated to the lien of the payee when he discharged it, and, the policy being entire and a valued one, the insurance had something to rest upon and was not a "wager con-tract." Cases are cited to sustain this contention, where creditors, sureties, and guarantors were, under the facts of those cases, held to have an insurable interest in the property for which their obligation was incurred. These cases have been critically examined, but none has been found among them, nor in an independent re-search into the subject, which sustains such a remote and uncertain interest in the property as the one in question to be an insurable interest which will support a policy asserting ownership in the assured.

Here there is a bare suretyship for a debt not due when the policy was written, and the debt is only one-tenth the insured value